Does anyone have this lens? What are your impressions?
It's certainly too late to ask as a matter of fact, because I've already ordered one to try out.
I was getting ready to order replacements (yet again) for our 18-200DX older 24-120DX lenses when I stumbled across this one. Shows you how well-read I am. I wasn't even aware it existed.
We've been using the cheaper DX versions because Nikon hasn't had anything comparable to Canon's pro version (fixed f/4 min aperture, etc). But we flat wear out the cheaper consumer lenses from Nikon.
I'm hoping the feedback is good, because I'm sure tired of replacing lenses every couple of years!
Posted by Bob Miller on January 26, 2011 at 9:39 PM
Hey Hank! From what I've heard and seen it's twice the lens as the original version.Better build /faster AF. I owned the orig. but sold it soon after. A buddy has the VR and the straight from the camera jpgs look good and contrasty- not flat and poor in res like V1. Best info I can give personally.
On a side note- when are you expected again down south?
That's music to my ears, answering my major complaints about the originals. Along with their fragility. They're probably okay for casual use, but the beating of daily pro use takes a heavy toll, in spite of Nikon's great repair facility. We have 4 of them waiting to be sent back once again, and I'm more inclined to dump them. In the round file, and not on eBay! The same applies for our 4 18-200's. Only one is in top shape any more.
We're headed south again early in March. Not sure about when we'll venture further down into your part of the world, but late March or early April are likely, depending on weather in Colorado and the state of our enterprise there. If it's cold, you can bet we'll be headed for points south, and quickly. If you recall, last time we did so we ended up in Bisbey before we warmed up!
Oh this is good news! I loved the range of the 24-120, but as in Hank's experience, found they didn't hold up well. Image quality wasn't that good either, compared to the 24-70 I then shelled out big $$$ for. Love the IQ of the 24-70 but sure miss that extra 50 mm of range.
Hey, Hank– I sure enjoyed Bisbee when I was there in 2007. Fun town in an interesting location.
Bisbee is a great town Catherine (and note I spelled it right this time!). I grew up in the desert a couple of hours east of there, so the surrounding desert is as appealing to me as the town.
Good to hear you like the 24-70, but the short focal range would mean too many extra lens changes for us. We've got several (3? 4?) of the old 35-70 f/2.8's in the safe, all in perfectly good shape. They're stellar lenses, but way too short for daily use. Yet the jump to the 80-200 f/2.8 was lots of extra weight and bulk when we do most of our shooting in the 80-110mm range.
Posted by Melody Watson on January 27, 2011 at 12:33 AM
I hope it was a good choice because I have one on order too!
Posted by Bob Miller on January 27, 2011 at 1:35 AM
Hank-
Be sure to shoot me an email or give me a call when you come through. The gang always asks about you. On the phone with bolth Rowe and Blaisdell today.
As for wear and tear on the new lens only time will tell. I remember you pulling an 80-200 2.8 from under the seat unprotected after miles of off-road driving.
I remember you pulling an 80-200 2.8 from under the seat unprotected after miles of off-road driving.
That's a workhorse lens, isn't it! You should see what's happened to it on aerial shoots and rough boats. Still going strong almost 20 years later. Good, honest metal rather than plastic.
Tell those two I'm still around and want to be in the loop!
Posted by Glenn Starr on January 27, 2011 at 6:04 AM
Hank,
I own this lens as well have previously owned the 24-70. Absolutely love the new 24-120! Sold the 24-70 after I got it because, although a really sharp fast lens, was too short for my D700. There is distortion to deal with but very easy to deal with in post. Sharp lens and very convenient. Not as sharp as he 24-70 but you really need to pixel peep to discern the differences. So, in summary, very satisfied and sits on my D700 90% of the time.
Glenn
Posted by Dan Baumbach on January 27, 2011 at 8:04 AM
I own this lens and use it almost every day. I love it. I got it for it's range, but when I've had to, I've used the VR too and got very sharp results under bad conditions. I whole heartedly recommend it.
Outstanding news, both for my photography and checkbook.
Thanks for the feedback folks!
Posted by Kent Staubus on January 27, 2011 at 5:31 PM
I tried the 24-120mm VR f4, and liked it. The first version just wasn't all that good, but this newer one is. The range is outstanding and that's its main attribute. The f4 is fast, but not quite fast enough for me. I shoot at night quite a bit and all my lenses are now f2.8. If you are shooting a full frame NIkon the lens is perfect for "general purpose." If you are shooting a DX camera, you will likely miss a bit on the wide end. Photography always has its compromises.
That's good feedback Kent, and thanks. I'm accustomed to carrying a Nikkor 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 along with the 18-200, so I doubt I'll notice on that end. Every once in a while I'll miss the long end, but not enough to go back to a variable aperture and 72mm filter. We can get by with f/4 for most of our work, but we still have our old D-series 20-35, 35-70 and 80-200 f/2.8 lenses when needed. They're soooo heavy in comparison, they only come out of the safe as needed.
Posted by Glenn Starr on January 28, 2011 at 5:35 AM
Since I'm still a relative newbie to the digital era, grew up in film the last time I had photography as a hobby, I begin to wonder why I really need to invest in 2.8 glass. For example, the difference between f4 and 2.8 is 1 stop. I can compensate for this one stop loss by either reducing shutter speed by a stop or increasing my ISO by a stop. Considering that the 24-120 has VR II and gives close to a 3 stop advantage handheld, Nikon advertises 4 stops but don't think so, and the 24-70 does not then the 1 stop loss between the two lenses doesn't mean much. If I have the camera on a tripod then VR means nothing to this comparison. However, Nikon's focus (no pun intended) over the last few years is to increase high-iso low noise performance. Both my D700 and the D3s (which I don't own) have very good high iso performance. So, pumping up the ISO to 1600 is easy for my D700 to handle and others claim that 3200 is the highest they go with the D700. So, on a tripod in low light boosting ISO one stop also would negate the advantage of f2.8 over f4. I do understand that one great advantage of f2.8 is a shallower DOF and ISO and VR have no effect in this area.
So, for me, I guess the decision I make between 2.8 vs 4 glass is if DOF is what I 'm after so that I can pay more for the lens and lug a lot more weight around. Besides, growing up in the film days I used to think fast was ISO 400 and f2.8, or faster, lenses with the 1+ stop advantage was a really big deal. In the digital era it seems to be less of a need unless controlling DOF, such as portrait photography, is the primary concern.
Am I missing something? Sorry Hank if I'm hijacking your thread.
It's not a hijack Glenn, and in fact a point worth clarifying. We face the choices every time we open the safe to fill camera bags for a shoot or a trip. There are several points scattered through the preceding comments that apply.
One is image "quality," whether saturation, detail, clarity or distortion. As a general rule f/2.8 lenses tend to be a little more contrasty and a little sharper, especially at the more open end of the aperture scale and to a lesser degree at the closed end. But you have to look close to spot differences at around f/8 or f/11. If you're not going to shoot wide open, do you really need the extra weight and expense all day every day?
Distortion might be and issue at the short end of the zoom scale too, but if it's an issue for a shoot, even a pro-grade zoom is a compromise and isn't going to offer enough improvement. I'll either change my shooting location, use a tilt-shift lens, or as a last resort deal with it later in processing.
Bokeh, and other renderings of out-of-focus highlights are usually better at f/2.8 and wider. But that is such a rare consideration for me, I can usually plan ahead for those shots.
DOF, as you note is a big issue for some shoots, but the reverse of what most landscape photographers struggle with. F/2.8 is immensely useful for limiting DOF, but how often does that happen in nature shooting? Low light, yeah, but DOF? And with improvements in autofocus and high-ISO performance, do you really need to shoot at ISO 100 all the time?
Limiting DOF is my biggest use for f/2.8, but it's really only effective with longer lenses. My 80-200 f/2.8 is a lighter (and cheaper) compromise, and I often use a 300 f/2.8 and stand further back to get the shallow DOF I really need in model shoots. Truthfully I'd rather have a 200 f/2 or an 85/f/1.4. They're much better than any f/2.8 zoom and the better investment for shallow DOF.
But outside those rather specific needs are a whole lot of other circumstances and considerations. If you don't need the extra image detail or shallow depth of field, and mostly likely will be working in the middle of the aperture range or zoom range, do you really need the extra weight and expense?
We are frequently in situations (weddings, fast action, aerial shooting and industrial structure climbing, e.g.) where we simply cannot change lenses and have to rely on longer zooms or slinging multiple cameras. We simply can't stop and shuffle lenses. If an 18-200 or 24-120 lets me use one lightweight lens rather than two heavy ones on two bodies, the choice is immediately obvious.
We also wear our camera gear all day long, often in settings where you simply can't lay any of it down (whether security from theft, weather or movement). A pound here and there is a serious burden if you don't need it. The same applies in nature when hiking or shooting from dawn to dusk. Weight is an issue for carry-ons when flying too, and according to my sources is going to become an even bigger issue in the future when airlines start weighing carry-ons as they do in Europe.
I've rambled and I apologize for that. To sum it up, on average we don't need the extra capabilities of a pro-grade lens, and in fact don't want to risk it or lug the weight. We only resort to them if we need their advantages for specific shoots. If you can't afford both, then by all means go for the best you can afford and are willing to carry.
But in our case, the 24-120's and 18-200's of the world are additions to our spread of pro grade lenses, and not complete replacements. I only wish they could engineer a fixed aperture 18-200 at a price we could afford. And while they're at it, keep the weight under 2 pounds and make it an f/2 or f/1.4.
Posted by Glenn Starr on January 28, 2011 at 5:17 PM
Thanks Hank. I think we are saying much the same thing. I do love my 2.8 pro-lenses but only use them when I know I want something special they offer and willing to lug it around to do so. Maybe when I get really rich I'll re-buy the 24-70 2.8 and by then it will probably have VR. The best of the best would be a nice selection of 1.4 primes between 24 to 85 mm. Then I'll hire my teenage daughter's football jock boyfriend to lug all my equipment around for me.
Discussion
15 repliesIt's certainly too late to ask as a matter of fact, because I've already ordered one to try out.
I was getting ready to order replacements (yet again) for our 18-200DX older 24-120DX lenses when I stumbled across this one. Shows you how well-read I am. I wasn't even aware it existed.
We've been using the cheaper DX versions because Nikon hasn't had anything comparable to Canon's pro version (fixed f/4 min aperture, etc). But we flat wear out the cheaper consumer lenses from Nikon.
I'm hoping the feedback is good, because I'm sure tired of replacing lenses every couple of years!
On a side note- when are you expected again down south?
That's music to my ears, answering my major complaints about the originals. Along with their fragility. They're probably okay for casual use, but the beating of daily pro use takes a heavy toll, in spite of Nikon's great repair facility. We have 4 of them waiting to be sent back once again, and I'm more inclined to dump them. In the round file, and not on eBay!
We're headed south again early in March. Not sure about when we'll venture further down into your part of the world, but late March or early April are likely, depending on weather in Colorado and the state of our enterprise there. If it's cold, you can bet we'll be headed for points south, and quickly. If you recall, last time we did so we ended up in Bisbey before we warmed up!
Hey, Hank– I sure enjoyed Bisbee when I was there in 2007. Fun town in an interesting location.
Good to hear you like the 24-70, but the short focal range would mean too many extra lens changes for us. We've got several (3? 4?) of the old 35-70 f/2.8's in the safe, all in perfectly good shape. They're stellar lenses, but way too short for daily use. Yet the jump to the 80-200 f/2.8 was lots of extra weight and bulk when we do most of our shooting in the 80-110mm range.
Be sure to shoot me an email or give me a call when you come through. The gang always asks about you. On the phone with bolth Rowe and Blaisdell today.
As for wear and tear on the new lens only time will tell. I remember you pulling an 80-200 2.8 from under the seat unprotected after miles of off-road driving.
That's a workhorse lens, isn't it! You should see what's happened to it on aerial shoots and rough boats. Still going strong almost 20 years later. Good, honest metal rather than plastic.
Tell those two I'm still around and want to be in the loop!
I own this lens as well have previously owned the 24-70. Absolutely love the new 24-120! Sold the 24-70 after I got it because, although a really sharp fast lens, was too short for my D700. There is distortion to deal with but very easy to deal with in post. Sharp lens and very convenient. Not as sharp as he 24-70 but you really need to pixel peep to discern the differences. So, in summary, very satisfied and sits on my D700 90% of the time.
Glenn
- Dan.
Thanks for the feedback folks!
Kent in SD
So, for me, I guess the decision I make between 2.8 vs 4 glass is if DOF is what I 'm after so that I can pay more for the lens and lug a lot more weight around. Besides, growing up in the film days I used to think fast was ISO 400 and f2.8, or faster, lenses with the 1+ stop advantage was a really big deal. In the digital era it seems to be less of a need unless controlling DOF, such as portrait photography, is the primary concern.
Am I missing something?
One is image "quality," whether saturation, detail, clarity or distortion. As a general rule f/2.8 lenses tend to be a little more contrasty and a little sharper, especially at the more open end of the aperture scale and to a lesser degree at the closed end. But you have to look close to spot differences at around f/8 or f/11. If you're not going to shoot wide open, do you really need the extra weight and expense all day every day?
Distortion might be and issue at the short end of the zoom scale too, but if it's an issue for a shoot, even a pro-grade zoom is a compromise and isn't going to offer enough improvement. I'll either change my shooting location, use a tilt-shift lens, or as a last resort deal with it later in processing.
Bokeh, and other renderings of out-of-focus highlights are usually better at f/2.8 and wider. But that is such a rare consideration for me, I can usually plan ahead for those shots.
DOF, as you note is a big issue for some shoots, but the reverse of what most landscape photographers struggle with. F/2.8 is immensely useful for limiting DOF, but how often does that happen in nature shooting? Low light, yeah, but DOF? And with improvements in autofocus and high-ISO performance, do you really need to shoot at ISO 100 all the time?
Limiting DOF is my biggest use for f/2.8, but it's really only effective with longer lenses. My 80-200 f/2.8 is a lighter (and cheaper) compromise, and I often use a 300 f/2.8 and stand further back to get the shallow DOF I really need in model shoots. Truthfully I'd rather have a 200 f/2 or an 85/f/1.4. They're much better than any f/2.8 zoom and the better investment for shallow DOF.
But outside those rather specific needs are a whole lot of other circumstances and considerations. If you don't need the extra image detail or shallow depth of field, and mostly likely will be working in the middle of the aperture range or zoom range, do you really need the extra weight and expense?
We are frequently in situations (weddings, fast action, aerial shooting and industrial structure climbing, e.g.) where we simply cannot change lenses and have to rely on longer zooms or slinging multiple cameras. We simply can't stop and shuffle lenses. If an 18-200 or 24-120 lets me use one lightweight lens rather than two heavy ones on two bodies, the choice is immediately obvious.
We also wear our camera gear all day long, often in settings where you simply can't lay any of it down (whether security from theft, weather or movement). A pound here and there is a serious burden if you don't need it. The same applies in nature when hiking or shooting from dawn to dusk. Weight is an issue for carry-ons when flying too, and according to my sources is going to become an even bigger issue in the future when airlines start weighing carry-ons as they do in Europe.
I've rambled and I apologize for that. To sum it up, on average we don't need the extra capabilities of a pro-grade lens, and in fact don't want to risk it or lug the weight. We only resort to them if we need their advantages for specific shoots. If you can't afford both, then by all means go for the best you can afford and are willing to carry.
But in our case, the 24-120's and 18-200's of the world are additions to our spread of pro grade lenses, and not complete replacements. I only wish they could engineer a fixed aperture 18-200 at a price we could afford. And while they're at it, keep the weight under 2 pounds and make it an f/2 or f/1.4.